KRAMPUS - Movie Review

 Title: Krampus
Running Time: 98 min
Director: Michael Dougherty
Starring: Adam Scott, Toni Collette, David Koechner, Emjay Anthony, Allison Tolman, Conchata Ferrel, Stefania LaVie Owen, Krista Stadler

Review:
European culture is full of beautifully dark tales. From the "Struwwelpeter" (an 'educational' German children's book, where kids get their thumbs cut off and  are burned alive) to "Baba Yaga" (a deformed witch in slavic mythology), there seems to be a gruesome story for every occasion. So in a season where we are flooded with Christmas-themed romance movies, cheesy comedies and reruns of old family films, it is about time that one of these ancient legends gets a major motion picture to stirr things up a little.
With "Krampus" the creature from alpine folklore of the same name gets brought to life on the big screen. Seen as the counterpart of Saint Nicholas, the Krampus comes during Christmas season to punish those who misbehaved. Accordingly, the plot of this film is pretty straight-forward: During a big holiday get together, a little boy makes one wrong move and soon, the title-giving dread pays a visit to his house, haunting the whole family.
Now, such a premise might not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you are abel to roll with it, "Krampus" is a special little something for the holidays! Blending together ingredients of the horror and comedy genre topped with a Christmas theme, this film is unconventional and yet satisfyingly fresh, like a rare foreign dish. The looks of this movie are certainly its strongest parts. Michael Dougherty makes some nice creative choices throughout the film like an animated flashback sequence that is enchantingly dark, similar to the 'The Tale of the Three Brothers'  from "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1". Also, the creature design is more than impressive and Krampus' mischievous „little helpers“ gave the costume and effects department a chance to let lose. With mainly oldschool practical puppetry and only a hint of CGI to enhance it, the film gains a hell lot of grid, and even manages to put creepy clowns on to the next level. The big boss himself looks simply stunning, and has a far greater and menacing presence than any other visual incarnation of this mystical figure. While his minions are wild and unruly, his movements are the ones of true predator: Slow, calm, and only quick when the time is right. Paired with a beautiful score (well worthy of a monster movie) the film doesn't lack atmosphere at all. Especially when "Anti Saint Nicholas" and company are on screen.

On the other side is the human component of the film, which works quite well, but certainly has some room for improvement. The cast is doing a pretty good job: Child actor, Emjay Anthony, manages to helm the film suprisingy well, and Adam Scott shows once more that Hollywood shouldn't continue to overlook him for bigger parts. Krista Stadler's portrayal of Omi carries the film through its more dramatic moments and gives it an unexpected form of gravitas. However, most of the other characters, especially the annoying relatives, aren't really fleshed out. The movie fails to dig deeper into the few redeeming moments they have, leaving them as one-note characters you don't really care about, and thus hindering the viewer of getting more emotionally invested.

Furthermore, there are a few expectations that might have to be adjusted: Eventhough the film's title is Krampus, he is more like an "end-boss" of the movie, only fully engaging at the climax of the film. For the first hour, the dirty work is left to his tiny henchmen, and though they are a lot of fun to watch, you'll get less than you hoped for, if Krampus was the big pull for you. Additionally (and in contrast to what the trailer might suggest) the movie refrains from jump scares and splatter elements when presenting the horror. Technically, this speaks for its quality in filmmaking, but it will certainly disappoint people who were in for a bloodbath.
Overall however, "Krampus" is a hell lot of fun, once you can get into it. A movie that missed the chance of becoming a cult hit only by a little bit. If a sequel could smooth out its shortcomings, it could probably receive that status. On top of all that, the film earns another few plus points for actually conveying a nice message. "Love thy neighbor" might have been told a gazillion times during the holidays, but it has rarely been told so violently playful. Oh, and personally, I thought the ending was a perfect fit!

For Fans Of:
Gremlins (1992)
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
The Babadook (2014)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

TOP 3 FILMS FOR HALLOWEEN ...from a Horrorfilm-Sceptic

 Hello there puny humans,
if you have followed this blog you might have noticed that I haven't really reviewed any horror films. If you know me personally you might even know that I am not really a fan of the genre. Not only do I think that most horror films often have sloppy scripts and fall back to cheap tricks rather than good filmmaking, but I am also a person who doesn't really get scared. Basements, darkness, ghost stories or being alone at home have never frightened me all that much, even as a kid. Thus, the selling point of horror films has basically always been lost on me from the get-go.* But I guess you have kind of an obligation to do something like a Halloween special as a film reviewer, so I decided to come up with three of my favourite scary movies you can watch tonight (in no particulare order):

1. TRIANGLE
Released in 2009, this australien-british horror film is unknown to many people, eventhough it really shouldn't be. Starting off very cliché'd, you think this will be a cookie cutter horror flick, but after about half an hour it catches you off guard and you start asking yourself what's actually going on. It is one of those films you should watch without really knowing much about it, because there are a few possible spoilers. So if you decide to watch this flick I recommend not watching any trailers. Unfortunately that also leaves me in the position of not being able to tell you much more. But what I can tell you is that Triangle is a mystery psycho-thriller disguised as a cheap horror flick, and more complex than most of the scary movies you'll watch this weekend. It has a high rewatchability factor, because you will notice new things even the third time you're watching it. There are quite a few parts where it gets bloody, but they are mostly in the first half of the film. It got 4 out of 5 stars from Empire Magazine, holds 82% at Rotten Tomatoes and it certainly gets my approval.

2. THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

Screenwriters Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard got together on a weekend with the intention to write a film about everything they love and everthing they hate about horror films. The result is this unique horror comedy (?) that turned the rules of the genre on their own heads. Once again this is a film you should know as little as possible about (I know, I'm horrible), so that you can allow it to surprise you. Just know, that you will be surprised, because if you eagerly expect a very classic teens-go-to-the-woods-and-get-murdered story you might be startled at what you are actually getting. House of Cards' Kristen Connoly and Thor himself, Chris Hemsworth, star in the film, but the real show-stealer is highly underappreciated actor and Joss Whedon regulare Fran Kranz. Once you've seen his performance as the constantly stoned character of Marty, you'll wonder why he doesn't get cast more often. Another thing cinema fans might enjoy is that the film isn't only an homage to horror films, but to the making of movies as well. There is literally tons of blood during the showdown, but the clever and over-the-top script manages to mitigate these images quite a bit. The Cabin in the Woods was definitely one of my favorite films of 2012.

3. PAN'S LABYRINTH

My last recommendation is far less trashy than your standard Halloween movie. On the contrary: Guillermo del Toro's dark fairy tale Pan's Labyrinth is a critically acclaimed masterpiece, and the best proof that thorough, classic filmmaking is usually much more terrifying than simply going for the fast and easy shock value. The reason this film is so great is that it perfectly matches a fantastical world full of creatures and wonder, with a real-life story set during true historic events. This brilliant concept allows the film to send shivers down your spine on multiple levels. The children-eating "Pale Man" (see poster) is creepy enough on his own, and yet the truely terrifying monster is Captain Vidal. A human being with nothing supernatural to him. The film makes reality the most sinister thing and so hardly ever does horror feel more legit than here. I left the movie more haunted than after any ghost, possession or slasher film, but still enchanted by its magic. It is an elaborate piece of cinema with a lot of love for detail. A great story completed with beautiful visuals and del Toros best work yet. A film for the ages.

There you go. These are my personal picks for Halloween. Do you agree or disagree? What are your favorite horror films? Feel free to comment below and share your opinion. I've already been told that The Babadook would have made this list if I had already seen it. So I guess that is another movie watching experience I've got to look forward to. Enjoy your Halloween and have a spooky night!

Sincerely,
Your Cinemartian

*Don't get me wrong. I am not fearless. I am extremely afraid of heights and terrified by the concept of death itself, but these fears are usually discussed in other genres like dramas or thrillers.

BACK TO THE FUTURE - A Celebration

 Hello there puny humans,
it is October 22nd, 01:59 a.m. in Germany at the moment, which means that it's 04:59 p.m., October 21st in California. Half an hour ago Marty McFly arrived in the futuristic Hill Valley and is probably on his way to "Cafe 80's" right now. Needless to say, I have just finished a Back To The Future-marathon (a shout-out to my Middle earth marathon buddies for reuniting for this event). It had been a long time since I had last seen this trilogy and while rewatching it tonight I couldn't help but noticing what a great kind of filmmaking it is. So here is a quick laudatio to these three adventure films, and an attempt to explain why they've managed to stay so popular:

1. The Cast
In our heads Michael J. Fox will forever be Marty McFly and it is hard to imagine anyone else in the role. However, the role originally went to upcoming actor Eric Stoltz, because Fox couldn't get out of his schedule for Family Ties. Stoltz, who was known for his method acting, had already been shooting for 4 weeks, when the filmmakers decided that he just couldn't get the humor across and decided to replace him. Michael J. Fox (still involved in shooting the TV Show) was approached once more, and the actor decided to film Back To The Future and Family Ties at the same time, resulting in him being at a movie set for almost 18 hours a day. It ended up being the right decision. Michael J. Fox showed great comedic timing and yet managed to be the everyday guy we could all relate to. The commitment he put into the production translates to the screen 100%, and there are only few actors who can do whitty and charming as good as he does.
And then of course there is Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown.This oldschool stage actor really shows off his experience. He knows exactly when to overact, when to play it down, and when to let Fox take the lead. His body language and facial expressions are priceless, and yet he totally pulls the emotional parts of this film off as well. The chemistry between those two is incredible, and the fact that they (and the rest of the cast) reprised their roles quite often after finishing the trilogy just shows how much they loved the material. The skills of Thomas F. Wilson need to be mentioned at this point too, because he improvised most of Biffs most populare catchphrases.

2. The Crew
One thing people should know however, is that the films creators, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, are just as much the stars of the movie as its leading actors. This film really was a passion project for them and firing Eric Stoltz (which ultimately cost them about 3.000.000 dollars) wasn't the only tough task they had to fullfill. When Zemeckis and Gale pitched the movie to major studios, they were rejected about 40 times. Columbia said the movie was to quirky and childish. Disney called them insane for thinking that they'd produce a movie featuring a somewhat incestuous relationship. After Zemeckis had gained more respect in the industry for making Romancing the Stone and his friend Stephen Spielberg got involved in the project, Universal Studios finally picked up the script. But still, the filmmakers had to face some obstacles every now and then. One of the producer told them to change the name of the film since he believed no kid would want to see a film with "future" in the title. The team basically ignored it and later when another executive told Zemeckis that they would get an extra 75.000 dollars if they changed the DeLorean into a Mustang, Zemeckis supposedly just said: "Doc Brown doesn't drive a f**king Mustang!" ... Now that is a great answer.

3. The Characters
But how exactly do we know that Doc Brown doesn't drive a Mustang? Well, probably because he is such a fleshed out character that it feels easy to guess what his opinion on such a car would be. And that is exactly the point. Doctor Emmet Brown and Marty McFly are such well written characters that it is easy to relate to them. Marty is just a boy who would love to be successful in his hobby and who wished his family was a little cooler. The complete and utter regulare kid. Doc Brown seems a little crazier and over-the-top, but is ulitmately just someone who is overly enthusiastic and passionate about a particular subject (in his case science). He represents the nerd in all of us. Both characters however aren't perfect. They are flawed individuals. Marty has selfish intentions every now and then (remember the "Sports Almanac" scam was his idea) and doesn't even have a real character arc in the first film. Doc Brown on the other hand is in a constant conflict between his morals and his love for exploration and innovation. At multiple points he says that the time machine must be destroyed, and yet he keeps building new ones. There are points in this movie where both of these guys are at the height of their power (e.g. Marty on a skate-/hoverboard), but also sequences where they are completly down on their luck. It is something that late 80s films did very well (just watch the first Die Hard or the third Indiana Jones for further examples) and it makes the characters incredibly genuine and relatable.

4. The Humor
When I was sitting in the theatre, it was not only packed but people were laughing. A lot. So the question is: How can a 30 year old movie still get a hundreds of people to crack up? What kind of humor can do that? The answer is simple: Not a single kind, but multiple kinds. The thing about Back to the Future is that its funny in multiple ways:
There is situational comedy when Marty meets his parents in 1955 and encounters a lot of awkward moments. Raunchy humor, when Marty's mom explains that she has "parked before". Great physical comedy simply provided by Christopher Lloyds face, or by Michael J. Fox and Crispin Glover (George McFly) who also know how to get laughs out of their body language. There are tons of pop culture references including Marty disguising as "Darth Vader" from planet "Vulcan" or citations of films like Taxi Driver and Midnight Cowboy. Inside jokes that only work if you've seen all the films (like Doc and Marty switching catchphrases in Back to the Future Part III). Random humor is scattered throughout the movie too ("You got a back door in this place?" - "Yeah, it's in the back."), and of course the mandatory poop jokes make an appearance as well ("I hate manure!"). It's uber-awesome. Everybody gets someting to laugh about!

5. The Story
As multidimensional as Back to the Future's humor is though, so is it's story. Just putting it in a specific genre seems difficult enough as most movie encyclopaedias refer to it as a "adventure science-fiction comedy", and the third installment even throws "western" in the mix as well. Over all, it is a great rollercoaster ride. The first film is a classic straightforward story: It is about the hopes, dreams and wishes one has, and about the realization that your parents had them just the same. It is a light-hearted, personal film. The second one goes bigger, and introduces a more complex story. The dystopian 1985 and Marty's unsatisfying future teach you about responsibility and that there are always consequences to your action. With the murder of George McFly, it is much darker than its predecessor. Then the third installment comes along and turns everything on his head with its wild west setting. This story is more about Doc Brown, the legacy he wants to leave and of course his new found love, but it also carrys over the themes from part II.
As a whole, this trilogy hits the perfect balance between introducing new elements to the story and throw-backs to the previous films. The sequels are not exact copies from the original like Hangover Part II was, but are also not completely ignoring the tone and feeling of it (like Die Hard 5). And when they do copy themselves it it is so ridiculously obvious that you are actually waiting for it.
Furthermore, the whole thing is elaborately interconnected, and it is an incredible achievement to have a film in which its characters travel from 1985 to 1955 back to a better 1985, from there to 2015 and back again to a bad version of 1985, then to the very same 1955 as before, accidentally to 1885 and finally to the good 1985. And it all still makes sense (the only big flaw in the timeline is actually resolved in a deleted scene from Back to the Future Part II)! It just shows how much better it works if you film and script sequels together rather than working on one at a time. If all that wasn't enough, Zemeckis and Gale hid plenty of jokes within the films which you might only notice after repeated watching (for example 1985s "Twin Pine Mall" becoming "Lone Pine Mall" after Marty drives over one of the the pines in 1955). Back to the Future has an immensly cleverly constructed script, that has yet to find its equal. To me, it is a cinematic milestone. A masterpiece.

Now, where I have finished the article, the marathon is one week in the past. And it seems only appropriate that I start and end it at two different points in time. If you haven't rewatched Back to the Future last week (or if you have never seen it at all), you should do so, because I was blown away all over again. Also, if you are planning to have kids someday I urge you to show it to them too, because there is much they can learn from it: That some things are worth taking a risk for, that every choice you make has an impact on the world, and (most importantly) that your future hasn't been written yet. No one's has. Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one!

Sincerely,

Your Cinemartian!

PS.: For all BTTF geeks: the documentary about the trilogy, "Back In Time", is now available on Netflix!

6 REASONS WHY YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY CLASSIC MOVIES

 Hello there puny humans,
a few nights ago I rewatched Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. As a huge cinephile I obviously enjoyed it, but I couldn't help but think about the way films have changed, and about the way new mainstream audiences look back at the big movies that came out even before they were born. So, after a lot of thought I brought it down to six reasons for why our generation might not be able to enjoy classic films as much as the generation before us did:

1. Inflamed with stage

Although it is hard to imagine, movies have only existed for a little more than a hundred years, with "talking pictures" wholly replacing silent film as late as the 1930s. Naturally this young form of art drew heavily from its parent discipline - the theater - before finding its own unique voice.
So the further we go back in cinema history the more similar movies become to a stage play. This is most notable in two aspects: acting and cinematography.

A "Stand-Off"  - in modern film vs. oldschool theater

Unlike today, where directors like David Fincher are using the camera almost like an additional character, the recording device initially just replaced the theater audience's viewpoint. Hardly moving and using mostly the same angles. It took a little time until filmmakers realized how much you can add to a story through the way you place or move the camera.

Actors on the other hand did much too much rather than too little. When playing in a packed theater with no amplification whatsoever, movements, expressions and speech need to be exaggerated. This way every single person in the room can get what's going on regardless of the seating. Oldschool actors were still used to playing "to the back row", especially because you usually watched a movie in a theater rather than alone on your laptop at that time. For today's audiences however this kind of performance seems less natural. Add the uninventive camera movement and you are already much less invested in a film.

2. The effects of SFX
Most people believe this to be the strongest argument, but actually it is more of a weaker one. Yes, computer technology advanced at such a high rate, that filmmakers are now able to create situations, creatures and even whole worlds that could have never been realized just 30 years ago. However, due to the lack of computer technology back in those days, most movies did it practical: miniatures, robotics, and extensive make up. These effects usualy stand the test of time and are the reason why 80's films like Jurassic Park hold up better than those from the early 2000's with an overused CGI that was still in its baby shoes.

Still, when the complete climax of a story relies mostly on the visuals but these visuals are outdated, it will most definitely lose its impact. In very unfortunate cases the scenes even become laughable. The crescendo of Alfred Hitchcock's cunning thriller Rear Window for example used to put viewers on the edge of their seats. Nowadays, it evokes a chuckle at best:

3. The world is dark, and full of spoilers
Classics are classics for a reason. A whole bunch of people have seen them and even more people talk about them. Usually about their great and iconic moments. Every now and then however, these moments contain great twists, unexpected character developments or even the entire ending. Just like the great revelation of the original Planet of the Apes film was spoiled for, well, EVERYONE with the 2011 reboot at the very latest, most other cinematic milestones don't have any surprises left either. As a result, you will never be able to experience the same astonishment the original audience did. After all, hardly ever does someone leave a 50 year old movie thinking: "Wow, I never saw that coming!" Bruce Willis is really a ghost and Darth Vader is Luke's dad. Surprised? Probably not... 

4. It's raining copy-cats and dogs
Even if (somehow) you have been able to shield yourself from any information regarding the content of the film, you still won't be save from a little "been-there-done-that" feeling while watching. Why? Well, the great films that went down in cinema history have all had an impact on the industry for many years to come. Inspired by the awe they were left in, filmmakers would borrow from, pay homage to, or straight up copy elements from these movies just to recreate that same sense of wonder. Sometimes even trying to one-up the original. In three of the best science-fiction movies of this century, Sunshine, Moon and Interstellar, you can find concepts, ideas and even entire scences that resemble the ones from 2001: A Space Odyssey. A docking scene, a spaceship repairing scene, or just a lonely dude talking to a robot. These films haven't invented it, but updated it at the very least. And they are the movies young people see first! Something that was innovative back in the day has often become the standard for that particular genre, and so when they watch these classic films it just feels like the same old thing rather than groundbreaking. It's quite unfair to these pioneers, but hardly avoidable.

5. Less Fast, Less Furious
Maybe the most important argument is influenced by the change in our culture in general. Due to the invention of the internet and other technological achievements, we now have access to a much larger amount of information. Our generation has adapted to this very quickly and we are now able to proccess multiple things at the same time. We are checking our e-mails while texting a friend and simultaneously watching a tv show.
Filmmakers have realized this as well, and so directors don't hesitate to fill their films with just as much action as dialogue, and many other audiovisual information on the side. Events come blow by blow, scenes are more dense and characters have many different issues to face at once. As a result we get a much longer (or at least bigger) story in the same amount of time. By implication, we therefore perceive older movies as moving incredibly slow. So much so, that they tend to get boring. Even modern day films like Drive and Nightcrawler initially struggled to connect with mainstream audiences mainly because of their slow pacing similar to films like 1976's Taxi Driver. We are not used to long periods of silence  anymore and so when we are exposed to them it can go as far as making us uncomfortable. 

6. Superlatives! Superlatives everywhere!
Imagine the last time someone told you about a classic movie. It probably went down like this: "Have you ever seen Blade Runner? It's one of the best sci-fi films of all time!" or "You've got to watch The Shining. It's the scariest film I have ever seen!" and maybe even things like "What? You haven't seen The Godfather Part II?! It's the perfect movie!"

Not only has nostalgia wiped away all memory of flaws these movies might have had, but they are also always praised as 'absolute must-sees', 'brilliant masterpieces' or 'the best of the best'. Landing on Top 10 lists all around the internet and so very often mentioned as the biggest influences for the latest blockuster, it is hard to escape all the tales of their greatness. Obviously you think of your own personal favorites when hearing all this and your expectation skyrockets as your imagination crafts the most perfect of films from all the bits and pieces of movies you love. The bar is already set too high for any modern movie to reach, and on top of that an old film probably suffers from at least one of the points I mentioned above. The hype hurts.

Sure, it is fun to be excited about something, and word-of-mouth can be very helpful to the success of a film, but when people won't shut up about a particular thing it usually goes one of two ways: Either you are disappointed because it's different from what you expected, or you are so annoyed that you don't even want to watch it anymore. Nothing is better than seeing an awesome movie without any precognition, which is often what made these films classics in the first place.

If you are late to the party however, you don't get that luxury. Especially when you are half a century late...

So this was my explanation for why you might not be able to enjoy classic films. Did you recognize your own experiences in there? Or are you able to ignore all of this and enjoy them just as much as any other movie? Which old film did or didn't you enjoy? Feel free to comment below! And next time someone pops in Citizen Kane or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, try to remember this list and cut it some slack. Because one day you might find yourself telling your grandchildren about these 50 year-old mastepieces like Inception or The Lord Of The Rings that weren't even in 3D. And you wouldn't want them to think their lame, would you?

Sincerely,
Your Cinemartian

FURIOUS 7 - Movie Review

 Title: Furious 7
Running Time: 137 min
Directors: James Wan
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker (†), Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, Jordana Brewster, Nathalie Emmanuel, Kurt Russel, Tony Jaa, Jason Statham

Review:
It was a very bitter irony when "Fast & Furious" star Paul Walker died in a car crash in November 2013. The actor known for his generosity and charity work was in the middle of shooting this very film when he passed and so production was stopped to allow Universal Studios to discuss the future of the project with his family. They decided to simulate Walker's appearance with the help of his brothers Caleb and Cody as well as the famous visual effects team of Weta Digital, and finish the now slightly rewritten film in honor of his memory.
"Furious 7" gives you exactly what you expect from a film of the franchise: Fast cars, ludicrous action, cheesy one-liners and a sea of testosterone. No more, and certainly no less. Of course once again you have to accept that skin is steel, cars are magic and the laws of physics are more of a loose concept, but if you are able to do that you are in for some ridiculous action and grand scale visuals.
Story-wise however the movie is a little convoluted. It feels like there are two different storylines going on that don't really mix together. As a result, Jason Statham is kind of wasted as a villain. The plot just randomly gets our heroes from A to B, and instead of being the main focus Statham just pops up here and there trying to kill them, until he fails and disappears for another 20minutes.
Furthermore, you can tell that this is James Wan's first action film, as the way he films fist fights is a little to quick and with some unusual artistic choices. Especially Statham and Tony Jaa are actually able to do all the crazy fighting themselves, but due to the editing it looks like it could also have been a stunt double.
Nonetheless, they also do a lot of car stunts in this movie... and they are pretty damn awesome. Cars flying through building or skydiving out of a plane just make you laugh in excitement and are most likely the reason you bought your movie ticket in the first place.
Also the ending really gets you as the film pays great tribute to Walker and does such a fantastic job at honoring him that you can't help but get chocked up just before the end credits roll.
All in all, "Furious 7" is a worthy entry in one of the most lovable dumb action franchises. If you're a fan of the previous films you will most certainly not be disappointed, if you were on the fence though, this will not be the film to win you over. Turn your brain off and get ready for pure and simple entertainment!

For Fans Of:
Fast & Furious 6 (2013)
Fast Five (2011)
Need for Speed (2014)
Death Race (2008)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

INTERSTELLAR - Between Science and Fiction

 

 Hello there puny humans,

it has been more than 4 months now that Interstellar came out, and since then, it has been one the most talked about movies of last year. Critics accuse fanboys of hyping the film too much and over-looking its mistakes, while fans of the movie are annoyed that people seem to deliberately nit-pick just because it's made by Christopher Nolan and they want to see him fail. Despite all that, it is undeniable that the science presented in Interstellar is amazingly accurate for such a fantastical and large-scale sci-fi adventure. Not only was Kip Thorne (one of the leading experts on gravitational theories) advisor and producer on the film, but other theoretical physicists like Clifford V. Johnson (i.a. science consultant for the Discovery Channel), and even the famous Neil deGrasse Tyson praised the movie for its realism. So which parts are fact and which are fiction? I've worked my way through tons of videos and articles to find out, and though I'm still no science expert, I think I am now able to break it down for you! But those who haven't had the pleasure of watching this film yet, be aware: There is spoilers ahead!  

1. Another One Bites the Dust

Scene from Interstellar

Christopher Nolan's movie starts back on earth in the late 21st century, where due to food shortage most people have become farmers. The land has dried out and huge sandstorms are plaguing the cities, forcing a lot of families to simply pack their things and leave their homes, and heavily affecting the health of those who chose to stay. If you ask yourself wether something like this could really happen or not, you might be surprised by the answer: It already has happened!

Photograph of a Texan Farm, 1935

Yes, during the 1930's in the southern plains of the United States (including Kansas and Oklahoma) agriculture and ecology in general were severly damaged by great dust storms. Just like in Interstellar, these storms had a big impact on peoples lifes. In fact, the interviews with the elderly people you see at the beginning of the film are taken from Ken Burns' documentary The Dust Bowl, where eye-witnesses of the so-called "Dirty Thirties" talk about their actual experiences of that time (with the exception of the ones with Ellen Burstyn playing "old murph").
This phenomenon was caused by the dramatically quick increase of agriculture in a short amount of time, which was the result of the government funding the cultivation of land. This could easily have happened in the film, as here too, the government is supporting the idea of people becoming farmers due to the food shortage.

2. Sleeping Tight
To travel as far of a distance as the crew of Nolan's "Lazarus" mission does, its members put themselves into cryo-sleep. This technique, which is based on the principles of an animal's winter sleep, does not exist yet, but agencies like NASA are doing a lot of research on that matter, hoping to use it for a manned Mars mission. Eventhough they have yet to come up with anything beyond the therapeutic hypothermia that is used as a medical treatment today, there are a few cases that lead them to believe that cryonics might actually work:
Mitsutaka Uchikoshi of Japan purportedly survived 24-days without food or water after falling in snow and entering a hypothermic state. Erika Norby, a one-year old, was revived after her heart stopped beating for over two hours when accident left her exposed to -20 C weather conditions and her core temperature dropped to 17 C. And in 1999 Dr. Anna Bagenholm, at 29 years old, was revived after her heart was stopped for 3 hours after being submerged under ice while skiing. So who knows, maybe one day this bit of fiction might become reality...

3. Holes in Space: The Worm ones
Of course to get to a whole different galaxy as far away as the one in the film, even cryosleep wouldn't have helped because it would have taken way too long. In Interstellar however, the crew manages to overcome this obstacle because of a little help they got from "them". And what "they" did was placing a wormhole in the perfect spot for the spaceship to take a shortcut.

A "two-dimensional" demonstration of a wormhole

Now wormholes are a highly theoretical construct. Yet, a lot of scientist believe they exist. Stephen Hawking explains it like this: It's a basic physical principle that there are no truely flat surfaces. Even something as smooth as a billiard ball has cinkles and crevices that could be seen if it was magnified enough. The same applies for the rug-like structure of space-time (see 5.). On a scale much smaller than atoms and more than a sextillionth of a millimeter, tiny holes or tunnels can be found in it. Linking either two places in the same time or two points in time at the same place. If these shortcuts were (somehow) able to be captured and enlarged many trillions of times, a spaceship would be able to fit through them. Another challenge however would be to stabilize the wormholes as they form, fall apart and reform in less than a microsecond.
So eventhough wormholes are not proven to exist, the movie Interstellar uses the most current theories about them. Also its visual design is quite accurate, because as said in the film itself: A hole in space must be three-dimensional and therefore more of a spherical shape.

4. Surfing Safari
After a juddey ride through the wormhole the spaceship lands on a planet covered in water. Just a couple of minutes have passed when the astronauts realize that what they thought to be a very high island on the horizon is actually a mountainous wave coming towards them. Not all of them make it back before it hits and so the crew has to deal with their first losses.
Naturally, a lot of viewers thought that the wave was just a little gimmick the writers made up to give their characters at least some kind of challenge, but here too, the events are scientifically logical. On earth, low and high tide are created by the gravitational pull of the moon. A "bulge" in the water forms right under it, but as moon and earth are both moving without our notice, it actually looks like the water is moving. In the film, the planet they landed on is said to be incredibly close to the black hole "Gargantua" which has a gravitational pull that is significantly larger than the moon's. As a result, the "buldge" is substantially larger here and appears to be one giant wave. The only thing the film does get wrong is that it would not have such a peak and be much less steep than portrayed on screen. But that just wouldn't look as menacing...

5. What time is it?
Water is not the only obstacle the crew of the Lazarus mission has to face after their first touchdown. Every hour that passes on this planet equals seven years on our earth. What sounds like a crazy reversed-Inception-dream-time logic is actually one hundred per cent possible and plausible.

space-time dilation

As we learned from Einstein's relativity theory, space and time aren't two sperate things, but rather one and the same, called "space-time". Imagine this quantity as something like a rug or a bed sheet. Now imagine that this sheet was elastic like rubber. Gravitation is able to bend space-time, which would be like if you put a ball in the middle of our rubber sheet. Around the ball the sheet would now stretch and get thinner, so that you'd have less rubber per square centimeter. The heavier the ball the thinner it would get, and the same can be applied for gravitation. The stronger the gravitation of a celestial body, the more space-time gets "stretched". In other words: we experience less time. It passes more slowly. Since Gargantua has extremely high gravity, every planet close to it must experience a very big space-time dilation, just as it is presented in the film.
This kind of phenomenon is in fact relevant here on earth as well. Some GPS satellites are so far out of our planet's gravitational field that their clocks must run a little slower in order to match the ones on earth.

6. Holes in Space: The Black ones
We've heard a lot about Gargantua by now, but what exactly is a black hole?

"Gargantua" from Interstellar

Mathematically speaking every object in the universe has a so called "Schwarzschild radius", which gives you the size to which said object would have to be compressed in order to basically become a black hole. Because what black holes really are is a region where mass is so dense that even light can't escape its gravitational pull. This is also why they are called "black" holes. What Interstellar demonstrates exceptionally is the way one would actually look from the outside. Using algorithms of Einstein's general theory of relativity, the animators of the film were actually able to create new scientifical knowledge about the way it bends light and distorts images (a.k.a. gravitational lensing).

coordinate singularity

So much for the outside. But the inside of a black hole is not one bit less interresting. As a result of its density, there is a singularity lying in its core. Within this singularity the quantities to measure our physical units become infinite, and therefore the rules of physics don't apply in the same way anymore. To understand this better you could look at a coordinate singularity. This phenomenon can be observed on a globe at the spot where the north (or south) pole is. Here, the longitudinal and latitudinal lines are all compressed in a way that their measurement becomes meaningless.
Now, if anyone (like Matthew McConaughey apparently) was crazy enough to jump into a black hole, it is wrong to assume that this person would die immediately. In fact, there is a point called the event horizon, which is where the black hole's pull is already strong enough for you to never get out again, but where you haven't reached the singularity yet. You'd probably even have a breathtaking view, but as soon as you left the event horizon you would get spaghettified. Yes, this is actually a term used by scientist to explain the horrible and (most likely) deadly stretch that your body would experience... 

7. The Tessaract (...not from Marvel)
This is where we go deeper into the fiction part. After his jump, Joseph Cooper doesn't look like a spaghetti at all (or dead for that matter). On the contrary. He lands. And where does he land? Well, behind the book-shelf in his daughter's room...
At this point in the film, we don't really know if this is supposed to be the inside of Gargantua or if "they" somehow transported him there before he reached the end of the event horizon (the latter of which actually being less and more plausible at the same time). However, thinking that all scientific aspects of the movie have been thrown out of the window by now would once again not do it justice. I will not discuss the exact content of the ending here (though I personally quite like the message of love transcending space and time), and instead will focus on its visualization:
The difficulty the filmmakers faced here is that Coop' is supposed to be in a four-dimensional room. As the movie explains as well, for four-dimensional beings traveling through time would just be what walking up or down a hill is for us. Unfortunately, a visible fourth dimension is literally unimaginable for our brains. Yet, Nolan still gives it his best. He and his animators tried to construct something similar to a tesseract, which is to the fourth dimension what a cube is to the third (or a square to the second). When rewatching the scene you will notice that the "tunnel" that Cooper is stuck in is actually made up of a lot of cubic shapes. Further, (and just as explained before,) he is able to travel forwards and backwards in time by simply moving up, down, left or right inside the tunnel.
Thus, it might be a very speculative, but also a very ambitious way to portray a four dimensional room.

8. Cooper Station - or: Very weird baseball

Once again, we don't know exactly how Joseph gets out of the tesseract, but eventually he is rescued by a near by space ship. When he finally awakes in the medical facility of "Cooper Station" he looks out of the window, only to see more ground where the sky should be and people walking around upside down. This scene reminded a lot of viewers of a certain image from Inception, when the architect Ariadne is playing with the laws of physics within a dream. The idea of living inside such a habitat however dates farther back than the release of that 2012 blockbuster. In his 1976 book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space American physicist Gerard K. O'Neill proposes a design of a cylinder shaped space station, that very much equals the one presented in Interstellar. But why don't the people walking on the top fall off? And how is gravity generated at all?

space-colony art (1970)

The idea of the "O'Neill cylinder" is, that it rotates at certain speed, so that the centrifugal forces create an artificial gravity on its inner surface. A speed of forty rotations an hour would be fast enough to produce the 9,8m/s² we have on earth, but slow enough so that it wouldn't create symptoms of motion sickness. Special walls of windows set across from mirror-walls would be pointing at the sun and open at "daytime" to help reflect the sun's light into the cylinder.
So even this time Nolan has drawn on real scientific theories...

Aaaand that's it! I hope you enjoyed this in-depth look at Interstellar. It was lots of fun writing and researching for it, and I hope I didn't bore you to death with my newly gained knowledge. What were you surprised about? What did I miss? What did I get wrong? How are Joseph Cooper and his dad-in-law drinking beer eventhough corn is the only existing grain?* Feel free to discuss any of that and more in the comment section, and thank you so much for reading!

Sincerely,
Your Cinemartian

*the answer: corn beer exists

STILL ALICE - Movie Review

Title: Still Alice
Running Time: 101 min
Directors: Richard Glatzer (†), Wash Westmoreland
Starring: Julianne Moore, Alec Baldwin, Kristen Stewart, Kate Bosworth

Review:
Less than two weeks ago, the director of this movie, Richard Glatzer, passed away. With his final film the man who had been batteling the motor neuron disease ALS brought us the story of a woman struggling with yet another uncurable disease: Alzheimer's.
It is very clear to see that Glatzer was able to bring a lot of emotions and experience to this somewhat sensitive subject and so, the result is very impressive. "Still Alice" is an incredibly touching piece that treats its subject with a lot of subtlety and respect. The titular Alice is a woman in her early fifties. Being a professor in linguistics and having a very loving family on her side, her brain and her memories might be the most precious things to her. Thus, her shock is quite big when she finds out she suffers from early onset Alzheimer's disease. More and more difficulties arise as her cognitive functions degenerate and she has to face many problems like losing the ability to carry out her work or knowing that all of her three children could inherit the condition.
This kind of premise always has the risk of getting overdramatized, but what cast and crew have created here is anything but. Instead, the movie keeps you invested by creating very genuine characters through great writing and exceeding performances. The film, for example, uses a lot of time jumps, but keeps the viewer in the dark about how much time has actually passed. As a result, you have to find that out by yourself and so the impact feels much bigger when you suddenly see how far Alice's disease has progressed already. And then of course there is Julianne Moore, who plays the main character with such an honesty that you immediately feel empathetic. It's a quick smile, a glance of her eyes or just a cocked eyebrow that tells you everything you need to know about what's going on inside of her, and one can really appreciate this kind of subtlety. A well deserved Oscar.
So in the end, "Still Alice" is an amazing piece about the struggle with a disease such as Alzheimer's. A film that doesn't need to dramatize and even in the few scenes that it almost does, it gets grounded by the excellent Julianne Moore. A film that even Kristen Stewart didn't manage to ruin for me.

For Fans Of:
Away From Her (2006)
The Theory of Everything (2014)
Deux jours, une nuit (2014)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!